This well referenced Slashdot Article points to emerging data throwing further doubt on the Big Bang. I was interested, needless to say. Piles of stuff is landing on arxiv.org, but it's a bit soon to be drawing firm conclusions.

I thought it might be good to put this thread up as a place holder for firmer data, so those interested can share data. I hope this thread doesn't descend into obtuse scientific gobbledygook that nobody understands. Likewise I hope it is not polluted by hours long youtube videos of debates or 'lectures' by those who love the sound of their own voice going on ad infinitum.

I never went for the Big Bang myself, but put it down as one of those theories that was 'too big to fail.' In that context, it's illuminating that peer review has been used to keep criticism of the big bang out of scientific journals.

I did discover one thing: Everyone makes reference to 'z' numbers, but nobody explains anything. Here's the explanation of z: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

That Slashdot forum post quotes one article that says (emphasis added):
It then goes on to quote Eric Lerner, a non-astrophysicist, who wrote a book about a rejected cosmological theory, which was reviewed and dismissed by numerous actual astrophysicists.


But apparently not too early for random uneducated speculation? :/

Thousands of people who have devoted their lives to deep study and perfecting skills in Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering etc etc etc have put in millions of educated, skillful man/hours to sift through massive amounts of data to conclude that, simply put, Expansion, what is called Big Bang, is the best explanation for those tons of collected data on how the Universe works. None of these folks assume the theory is the equivalent of "gospel" or the final conclusion all wrapped up neatly in a bow.

BigBang/Expansion is just a rigorously tested theory that has lasted through just shy of 100 years of the continuous tests of scientific falsification, not to mention the slings and arrows of fundamentalist folks who imagine a 2000 year old collection of myths is a literally true and accurate, and somehow better in formed than what yet remains the best evidenced conclusion we have after 200 years of immense progress.

Why would any sane, intelligent lay person imagine their mere speculation "weighs more" than that body of work? As expected, JWST is refining Big Bang, not replacing it or even gather argument that Big Bang is fundamentally flawed. What does appear to have some flaws is our modeling of how galaxies evolved since Big Bang. It appears they gathered more quickly than we thought they did. That's all so far.

I'm not arguing the big bang so please don't argue it.

Personally, I don't greatly care what you believe. I never went for the big bang as a beginning. Nobody could tell me how the big bang was caused - who lit the big fuse? But you're welcome to believe it.

I have a different angle altogether. Science always boasts of how it overturns it's most treasured notions on the basis of new information. Here is a test of their willingness to do that.

I've always felt some ideas in science are 'too important to fail.' The big bang is one; the origin of life on earth is another. Evolutionists insist it happened but nobody can say how and they've all run away. Peer review should not be used as censorship. But it happens. That's what's interesting here. How much of what's on arxiv.org makes it through peer review?

Why did you start a thread then?

And you speak about doubt. Now please show me the acrobatic jumps through semantic hoops, that explain how that is not the same as arguing.

(emphasis added) - so science is this one homogenous personalised entity in your view?

Frankly, I doubt that. You should probably add the word "baseless" or "unscientific" in there.

While Big Bang wasn't big nor did it bang lets talk about any old explosion in terms of determining if an explosion occurred. What line of logic denies an explosion occurred when there is a distinct debris field and a photo of the explosion? More importantly, how does not knowing who set the charge have any bearing whatsoever on whether an explosion occurred?

As an aside, maybe you missed my earlier point, but what tests have you done, what scientific research have you reviewed that you think justifies "never went for it"? There is massive evidence For and precious little Against so what "Againsts" are you aware of that so few others know?

Science doesn't boast but credible scientists do recognize falsification is a major tenet of the scientific method. Apparently you are unaware of how much sweeping change there has been just in the early 21st Century, and far more vast change since the 20th Century. If you imagine scientists are reticent to discover new information, then how do you explain the universal fervent desire for funding to push the limits of technology? like LHC? like JWST?

If Science were as you seem to think, merely a competing belief system, why take the risk on new gear, new technology, deeper study? Why spend 20+ years developing JWST knowing it could, and likely would diminish if not destroy someone's cherished theories? Just FTR the quest at LHC to find the Higgs Boson, destroyed a few multi-decade careers just based on what energy level it exhibits.

Peer review can be interpreted in a wqay that looks like censorship, but I think that's a good thing. One must beat the champ! Draws are not sufficient. Why would anyone trust a body of knowledge that didn't judge hypotheses on accumulated merit, or at an extreme that took woo woo seriously and entertained mere speculation?

I note your points on peer review but disagree. The idea of life arising from natural chemicals has been accepted by every evolutionist. But there is no plausible hypothesis, let alone proof. Nor has there been for over 60 years. No work has been done recently. Professors tell their students to run away. Why isn't science updating us there? Peer review. Evolution is founded on a falsehood.

I won't comment on the Big Bang (as it is commonly known) because it has being rewritten so often I have stopped keeping track. Yet nobody is prepared to accept that the concept is false. It should not, imho, survived the Higgs Boson. And everything about it happened 14 billion years ago. How can anyone be definite now?

Let's presume something happened 14 billion years ago. It doesn't explain what was there before, and who initiated the change. And you get back to something that was always there. If it was matter, it was stable. You have mentally come to the doorstep of someone you don't believe exists.

Even the original idea - the point with zero dimensions exploding - was imho crazy. What happened Before? Who could have set the zero dimensional charges in the exact centre of a zero dimensional singularity? And many questions follow.

EDIT: MAY I POINT OUT THAT THIS THREAD IS A PLACEHOLDER FOR NEW INFORMATION and not the 'faith & religion megathread'? Kindly argue your religious beliefs or lack thereof there.

I'm puzzled as to why you have such a rooted objection to the so-called "big bang". The Bible, which we both accept as authoritative, starts with the words, "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." In other words, there was a beginning to the universe and the heavens were made first, then the earth later. That's precisely what modern astrophysics shows.

Of course most modern scientists are atheists, unlike the great scientists of the past, so the idea of the universe being created at a specific time 4.5 billion years ago (albeit in an embryonic form) is extremely embarrassing to them. I mean, who created it if God doesn't exist? Hence the attempted explanations of the event in terms of collisions between mythical "branes" or a phase change in a quantum vacuum, or even a "big bounce" from the collapse of a previous universe. All these supposed entities seem to me to be completely mythological. Let's just say there was a one-off creation event that irreligious people have never been able to give a reasonable explanation for. And if you don't like the term "big bang", just call it something else.

I added emphasis to highlight the contradiction in just this one post! The thread title is about JWST consequences yet you immediately assume and jump into Big Bang which is in no imminent danger of being unseated. THEN you jump into Origin of Life. Clearly this thread is a ruse of a platform for you to posit your religious views AND you want to use science (actually pseudoscience) to promote those religious views.... again, attempting to disprove that critical thinking works, is a valid methodology, by posing as critical thinking. Such an approach is intrinsically doomed to failure.

Allow me to paraphrase what Georges LeMaitre, employed in Science at the Vatican, told the then Pope when he told the pope about his theory of the Cosmic Egg (which later was popularized by the derogatory term, Big Bang). The pope excitedly claimed "That proves God created the Universe!". Georges replied (paraphrased) "You should keep to what you know best, scripture, and leave Science to scientists".

As it applies here, I suggest you start your own thread to discuss in whatever way you like, since you obviously have studied and know a lot about Christian scripture, your own thread about Religion. Any thread you create about Science invites scientists who will immediately recognize your Anti-Science agenda and your lack of expertise and understanding of the actual practice of the scientific method. I'm reasonably confidant I have invited you in the past in other threads to research "5 Sigma" to gfivbe you some understanding of the level of proof scientists require of evidence for it to be taken seriously. I honestly am not trying to offend you but I don't know how to gently inform you your standards of proof don't measure up... not even close.

Furthermore and OT but tangent to the above quote regarding Origin of Life ...

@gentlebeings, your back-and-forth "arguments" are probably more religious than anything Christianity (or anything else) possibly could be.

"Everybody wants to know what no one can know – the answers to 'Life, the Universe, and Everything.'" This hasn't changed, and it never will. "We are all stuck on this out-of-the-way planet, with impossibly-short life spans, and it sux."

If you want to believe "And GOD said," then you will spew "creation 'science.'"

If you want to believe "Big Bang," then you will spew endless amounts of "scientific research" which supports your viewpoint.

And, in both cases, "you will 'defend' it to the death."

Not so, sundialsvcs. I have exactly zero problem if, as is somewhat possible, JWST or anything else actually does observe something that ruins Big Bang or Rapid Expansion, even if the destruction is total. I bet with The House...expensive, but the odds are better. Quite frankly, if JWST spotted several galaxies situated to spell out "Jehovah/Allah (insert name of God) exists and created all this", I would remain skeptical and want to look deeper but it certainly would cause me to ponder my conclusions in earnest.

Here's a giggle for you attached...

Attached Thumbnails

 

Thank for your thoughts. Please don't link me with the nutty young earth christians that crop up spouting creation science. I repeat, this thread was a placeholder for JWST info, not a spot for anyone to dispute the validity of the Big Bang. I expect the discoveries might take us a bit further, but whereras I foresee a situation "that cannot be explained," I cannot imagine any scientist acknowledging a Creator. Look at the origin of life: They certainly have had for over 60 years "A situation that cannot be explained." But I won't rub it in. Life arising by chance is too big to fail.

Let me predict: Folks will say the Big Bang has challenges, is in trouble, etc, but no further. Everyone 'scientific' will pay it lip service, but nobody will dare write it down, because too many "road blocking" discoveries will exist. It will be like trying to get out of a maze where every turn is a dead end. The Big Bang is also too big to fail. So, like the origin of life, peer review acts as censorship, researchers will pick another field, etc.

Do you think other posters here are stupid, or are you unaware how obvious it is that every single post you have made in this thread contains you doing exactly that?

Was I so blunt you didn't read all of my response? I actually mean it that I don't wish to offend you. That's not my intent but just collateral damage implicit in trying to explain levels of proofs. How would or should your most celebrated or revered sports star... I'll just use Tiger Woods because I'm an old American and suppose everyone knows who and what he is, a man who spent many hours every day since a small child studying and playing golf with great trainers.. how would he gently rebuke you if you imagined you could compete with him in a golf match?

The analogy is not for me, but for the many thousands of scientists who have similarly studied and trained in numerous fields like Astronomy, Astrophysics, Geology, Chemistry, Biology etc etc etc that conclude, despite some unsolved difficulties, that Big Bang and Evolutionary origin of Life are the best bets... the conclusions, accepted as provisional, but with the greatest odds.

Life arising by chance is not "too big to fail". It's just that there is no competing actual scientific theory. despite the fact that some 40% of scientists claim to be religious. Not being one of those I don't know how they individually reconcile Science and Creation but apparently they do. Perhaps they simply recognize that Big Question is not sufficient to explain anything specific in this world. FWIW I have some confidance we will one day understand Origin of Life but I suspect we will never know The Origin of the Universe, which incidentally is not the same as rebutting Big Bang since Big Bang is no longer assumed to be the ultimate Origin, just the beginning of SpaceTime as we know it.

I explained above that it is rather common for the untrained to see the high levels of qualifications to pass in Science (eg: 5 Sigma) as censorship. It is not. It just takes a LOT more than one 2000 year old book, which itself is a collection of allegorical Myth. If you deny that, perhaps you can still see, like apparently some 40% of religious scientists do, that whatever else it is, it is NOT a peer-reviewed, evidence-based, scientific treatise. It is a dog biting it's tail, a hypothetical eternal motion machine, not a hypothesis let alone a scientific theory.

It may be Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson who said it but I write not because it's from him nor any other authority but because it is astute -

"The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you". I'll add to that, to whatever degree that is humanly possible it is a monumental, progressive struggle of exceedingly small steps. Talk about acceptance akin to the Myth of Sisyphus, can you imagine the cosmic slap in the face of being knocked back down the mountain that the recognition provided by observation of Dark Matter and Dark Energy which demand we recognize we only even know what small percentage we do know of a lousy 5% of what is so far the base constituents of the Universe? The more we know, the more we are aware of what we don't know. Sorry if that disturbs you but that's the plight of being human.

There is no God concept in Buddhism/Taoism - and there is no beginning and no end of the universe.
Some people equate Cakya Mauni, Lao Tseu ... with gods, but these are bastardized forms of these religions.